--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > <snip> > > You used the phrase, "assuming that such a state > > (Spiritual Reality) exists." THAT is the problem. > > > > Curtis and I do NOT assume that such a state > > exists. If I've grokked what he's been saying here > > on FFL, we share a belief that everyone may have a > > *different* Spiritual Reality, and that NONE of > > them is any "higher" than another. > > Here's what I said to start with: > > "Just suppose, hypothetically, for the sake > of argument, that there was a state in which > one perceived a Spiritual Reality beyond the > material." > > That's what I was referring to when I said > "assuming that such a state exists." > > So in fact it isn't a problem--unless you are > unable to even consider *hypothetically*, for > the sake of argument, that there is such a > state. > > And if you can't, then you really don't have > any basis for complaint, because you're *also* > insisting that there is only "one reality"--a > reality in which everyone has a different > spiritual reality. > > In other words, you've fallen into yet > another infinite regress.
You clearly did not read my followup to my own post. To require someone to "hypothetically suppose" something is to claim -- for the duration of the argument -- that it's true. And to force the other person to "agree" to its "truth" -- again for the duration of the argument. Isn't it so much easier to say, "I believe that there is one reality" and not to try to force the other person to pretend it's true, just so you can have a discussion/ argument? I have NO PROBLEM with you believing that there is "one reality." But I can't pretend to believe that, just because you want me to. That's asking me to say something I don't believe is true. Remember how recently you were trying to teach Shemp what "Have you stopped beating your wife" means? THAT is what you are doing here. You are trying to set up the "rules" of the dis- cussion in such a way that the other person has to agree to something that he doesn't believe in order to participate in the dis- cussion. It's just so unnecessary. Why can't you believe what you believe and let others believe what they believe? Why do you want to force them to believe something else, even if just theoretically?
